Forget it.
I understand that to liberty-minded Americans, the state forcing yourself to insure yourself is a discomforting thought (though people accept mandatory car insurance without complaining), but trust me that in a generation from now US citzens will not need a law to compel them. If developments are anything like they are in states that have had mandatory health insurance for a while, then loss of health insurance will be perceived as a most devastating event/threat in any individual's life, an event to be prevented at all costs out of your own personal interest.
Hey, you guys are holding a sophisticated, measured discussion with valid points on what was a violently debated topic and where the wounds are still fresh. I'm proud of you!
The bill is far from perfect and probably contains some horrible cock-ups that will have to be rectified later. Any legislative project of this magnitude would under any government.
........I won't be a bit surprised if there are some issues in there which rise to the level of constitutional challenge.......
However, the thing that grinds my gears the most is the sleazy, back room mumbojumbo, hoodoo voodoo that this thing went through to pass when one party controls the entire show. If it was such a great thing you think they could have done this in the light of day - just doesn't pass the smell test.
The problem with all this is that Nancy Pelosi is about as far from Otto von Bismarck as the Monkees are from Cream.
To say we have been 'against' reform is a lie. Conservatives are mostly against the government model for health care, not health care reform itself. Big difference.
I'm sorry that didn't work for me. I'm in a band that plays both Monkees and Cream tunes. New analogy please? ;)
Neither party has a sole claim on that sleazy, back room process - it has been used by both in the last few years. But it does make good theater for each party to accuse the other without pointing out that it has recently done the same thing.
Good theater is good theater, regardless of fact.
We as a nation have been sold into servitude.
I heard an interview on NPR the other day in which it was stated that Republicans used reconciliation 39 times the last time they controlled both houses and the Dems a few more times than that. I can't stand it when one party points fingers at the other while denying that it's done exactly the same thing. Those bastards in Washington need to realize that they are no there for THEIR job security.
I think some might do good to look into what reconciliation is and how it's used. It's a perfectly legitimate parliamentary procedure meant to be used on portions of a bill which will lessen the deficit through its use. Reconciliation has never been used as a means to circumvent a filibuster and pass a bill of this magnitude, especially when the deficit benefits are highly questionable at best. (BTW, the filibuster is another perfectly legitimate option in Congress which the Democrats didn't seem to mind when they were the ones using it.)
The idea that both sides of the political aisle have been known to make sleazy deals is well taken, but judging parliamentary procedures as such simply because you don't like them when they're being used by the other side obscures the legitimate part of the discussion.
*IF* they can reduce the deficit over ten years, fine, but regardless, I'm still going to be on the hook for some of this.
Scott Dasson, ever the undramatic observer. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:I am independent of any political party. Why ramrod a bill that needs to be fixed?
I don't know why this US party radicalisation is - it defies expectation that as a state system matures everyone moves towards the middle - and why it is so pronounced in America. You've been a democracy for more than 200 years and contrary to some prophecies no Democrat or Republican administation has yet brought about the downfall of your great country. All Americans I meet seem to be neither Michael Moore nor Rush Limbaugh, but somewhere in the middle between the two, which appears to be a sensible political position for an adult with an acceptable IQ and not under the influence of drugs. Yet it seems to be the fringe constituencies that are pampered.
An interesting side note - a friend of mine, who is a band leader, will now be required to provide health insurance for his band members as of 2014. Because he has a formal business in the band, he's going to be someone that will get bit pretty hard on this.
We as a nation have been sold into servitude.
And lastly, this administration claimed that they would be above reproach. Everything would be covered realtime on Cspan, every piece of legislation would posted online for five days prior to it be signed into law by the president. What happened to the enlightend campaign promises?
The Cspan remark? The president made this a point during his campaign
I was asking because I had never heard the part about CSpan, but had heard the rest about the posting online and whatnot. There are a number of things that Obama has done which displease, but do not surprise me. Politics is a dirty business and those who participate in it, even with the best of intentions, have to play by its rules, whether it be Congress or the PTA. Obama is an idealist in many ways and this country's problems need more practical than ideological addressing.
sorta off topic...
One thing that really chaps my ass is the people who say they are so disgusted with government that they give up. How are things supposed to change if all we as a nation do is tacitly accept the status quo repackaged every now and then? My congressmen and representatives vote almost the polar opposite of me most of the time, but that doesn't mean that they don't hear from me and not just at the polls. I am extremely proud of my congressman, Jimmy Duncan, for his stand on the Iraq war, however symbolic it may have been, and I let him know it.
If anyone thinks that the feds can run health care I invite anyone to visit a VA hospital. Find an aging vet that depends solely on the VA and ask them what they think of the VA system.
America made a sacred vow to the members of our armed forces many years ago and look how their healthcare has been handled.
What about Medicare/Medicaid? Which is so far beyond screwed up that it defies description.
....
No matter what the issue or which party is in power, we have the finest congress that corporate money can buy. >:(
We've gotten into a nasty position in which "tax" is a forbidden word unless you are calling the other side names. People (and politicians) seem to forget that taxes pay for an incredible amount of services the federal and state governments provide the citizens. The tax cuts put in place by the previous administration at the same time we were fighting two unfunded wars was catastrophic to the economy. The current administration is in the awful position of now having to keep those tax cuts in place. Like I said earlier, if those clowns in Washington were to realize that they aren't their for THEIR job security, they would do what is right to get this nation back on track by making some hard decisions.
I'm relieved to be able to discuss such topics intelligently with everyone here!
One thing I would like to say about many of these issues, and this is NOT a popular opinion, is that all those tax breaks for the middle class (of which I am a part), should be dropped or minimized. The middle class being the largest sector of the American citizenry and benefitting from the most services, it's expected that we should have to pay taxes to receive those services, especially since "investments" by states and the federal government have not gone well.
We've gotten into a nasty position in which "tax" is a forbidden word unless you are calling the other side names. People (and politicians) seem to forget that taxes pay for an incredible amount of services the federal and state governments provide the citizens. The tax cuts put in place by the previous administration at the same time we were fighting two unfunded wars was catastrophic to the economy. The current administration is in the awful position of now having to keep those tax cuts in place. Like I said earlier, if those clowns in Washington were to realize that they aren't their for THEIR job security, they would do what is right to get this nation back on track by making some hard decisions.
Like everyone else, I'd love to keep all the money I earn and still get free police, emergency, health insurance, eye and dental care and have a nice National Guard, Army, Navy and Air Force to protect my free and easy lifestyle, but I'm smart enough to know that this stuff has to be paid for and I think many people (citizens and politicians alike) have forgotten this. After all, I can't walk into Harry's Guitar Shop and walk out with that Gibson Explorer on the wall without paying for it. Why should other things be different?
And no matter what posturing you hear about how Congress has stuck it to the insurance companies, the companies are very happy about the outcome. As well they ought to be, since they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into lobbying.
So - this will make some of you wince, I know :mrgreen: - I see my tax burden as a ...debt I'm repaying to society!
Sorry, Ayn Rand (and Neil Peart), I had to get that out!
If you wonder why some yanks abhor the idea of government being in charge of anything it doesn't HAVE to be, consider this; while the bulk of the new bill will not be implemented until 2014, a huge selling point was that two provisions would help 'the children' immediately. One being raising the age limit for dependent coverage to 26 so that adults could stay on their parents' insurance policy a bit longer. The second was mandating that insurance companies grant coverage to any children that apply (through their parents, I'm sure) for insurance without 'discriminating' against pre-existing conditions. That's fine and well, except they didn't include those mandates in this 2000+ page bill! Yeah, that doesn't inspire much confidence in me for what my government can do for me and mine re health care...
I won't address the cspan issue since that's already been covered, and you're right.
But again, this is not going to be anything like the VA and Medicare. The feds are not running anything, they will be dictating to private, for-profit insurers. IMO this will help some people but only make things worse than they are now for most people. But it won't be a government entity.
And no matter what posturing you hear about how Congress has stuck it to the insurance companies, the companies are very happy about the outcome. As well they ought to be, since they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into lobbying.
No matter what the issue or which party is in power, we have the finest congress that corporate money can buy. >:(
To name but a few:
Medicare is broken
Medicaid is broken
The Post Office (USPS) is broken
The VA is broken
ACORN is broken
...and the common thread is?
To what ever level they will be involved in health care they will make it worse, IMO. I challenge anyone to please tell me something that the federal government does really well - with the exception of the military, thankfully. I seriously look for the feds to further entwine themselves further into the medical system. Some of the uber lefties in congress are already harping about single payer again :o
This has been a good discussion, so let's stay way away from ACORN, it's not a government organization and isn't remotely connected to this.
The other things you mention are broken but they're not privately owned. Health insurers are privately owned and will continue to be privately owned.
However this bill winds up affecting American citizens, you can bet the farm that health insurers will continue to make record profits.
And the rest of us will pay for it.
The process of government is kind of a mess, and because of that there are indeed limits to what it does well. However, there are some things that only government can do on a large scale, because there is no incentive or reason for anyone else to do them.Why wouldn't we agree on them?
We may not agree about these, but it seems to me that there are important functions that government addresses which would not be dealt with effectively by commercial businesses or special interest groups:
Laws that protect people with disabilities
Laws that protect minorities from discrimination
Health care for people who are destitute or uninsurable
Organizing and regulating the use of public airwaves
Anti-trust protection
Organized crime protection
Coordination of law enforcement and information generated by it
Just some thoughts off the top of my head. The point I'm attempting to make is that although government is messy, it is not the enemy and it serves necessary functions. It is a tool that reflects the people who elect representatives to the government. If it is not functioning effectively, then the fault is in the populace for who they elect, and for not holding those elected representatives accountable for their failures to act. To the extent that the populace becomes polarized and unwilling to discuss compromise, their representatives will probably mirror that ineffective approach.
you can bet the farm that health insurers will continue to make record profits.
And the rest of us will pay for it.
I have a 40+% income tax burden, if you add indirect taxes such as eg VAT (19% in Germany) to it, then my tax burden is probably closer to 60%.
"Who is John Galt...?"
To name but a few:
The Post Office (USPS) is broken
eb2, I really enjoyed reading your thoughts. You're correct that this thread is the most political that I've seen here, but it also demonstrates the highest level of reasoned thought, consideration, reflection and careful expression that I have EVER read in an Internet forum.
I appreciate all of those who have contributed to this thread, and hope that it can continue in the same well-reasoned manner.
...and a grand prize will be awarded to the first poster to find a tie-in to WWII aircraft.
...and a grand prize will be awarded to the first poster to find a tie-in to WWII aircraft.
P-51 Mustang production modifications because of contract stipulations with the British? 8)
By production modifications do you mean the contract given to Packard to built the Rolls Royce Merlin engines which were unreliable until the aforementioned American car company in Detroit was given the contract to build them? ;D
This has been a good discussion, so let's stay way away from ACORN, it's not a government organization and isn't remotely connected to this.
The other things you mention are broken but they're not privately owned. Health insurers are privately owned and will continue to be privately owned.
However this bill winds up affecting American citizens, you can bet the farm that health insurers will continue to make record profits.
And the rest of us will pay for it.
And, oh yeah, THEY OWN US.
along with domestic deficit spending that are completely unsustainable.
(if history was just, Israel should now be situated somewhere in Germany)Except that Moses didn't come down from Zugspitze with the Ten Commandments. ;D
I've been called a liberal by conservatives and a conservative by liberals more times than I care to remember.
No I mean here in Oz the Liberal party ACTUALLY ARE the conservative party. The Australian equivalent of the American democrats is called the Labor Party. Different terminology from country to country shows how twisted things can get.
To really screw things up even more the Labor party govt of my state South Australia are actually more conservative than the Liberal party. Although this is a bit of an anomaly. Bloody annoying though. While attempting to stay impartial I make the observation that if you wish to vote for the left you should actually be able to and visa versa. In our recent election you could vote Labor (conservative) or Liberal (conservative). The only party offering genuine left ideologies was the Green party. As you can imagine the swing to the Green party was massive.
...
This whole approach seems to me to be a gift that assures insurance companies of ongoing income and a major - if not controlling - role in the logistics of health care, and mandating that these billions will go through commercial companies seems like a fantastic deal for the insurers. They may not like the provisions about pre-existing conditions and similar changes, but they'll just raise their rates to cover those provisions.
...
Do I have the picture SOMEWHAT right? :P
I just find it an insult to the intelligence of the American public when I start looking for articles at random and find the same talking points. This is presented as original thinking on the part of the columnists involved. In fact, it is an obvious coordinated effort to present what is really nothing more than propaganda. Plus, I didn't even point out one tenth of what was actually said. That would have been far too controversial. Speaking of historical analogies, this reminds me as much of "Pravda" and "Izvestia" from the Soviet era as anything else.
I received this in an email, but I haven't been able to verify it yet.
"The government will not be allowed to impose any kind of price controls over the health insurance providers, so they can hike the cost of insurance as much as they want without fear of governmental intervention."
So far in the brief search that I tried I couldn't find a real answer to it. Does anyone here know for sure if it's true or false?
When you put more consumers into an existing market, costs rise. Politicians either don't understand this or pretend not to.
if traditionally conservative corporate entities like the insurers and drug companies had a part in this, then there is plenty of blame to go around for those not happy with this bill.
In the meantime, foreign policy has been so neglected to such a degree that I find myself almost in shock. So far Obama's foreign policy seems to consist of alienating America's closest allies.
How is functional democracy in Iraq, an exit strategy from Afghanistan, and an international consensus aginast Iran's nuclear weapons progam negligent to foreign policy? Just because the US finally called a spade a spade in regards to Isreal does not make us any less supportive of constructive efforts for peace in the Middle East.
I received this in an email, but I haven't been able to verify it yet.
"The government will not be allowed to impose any kind of price controls over the health insurance providers, so they can hike the cost of insurance as much as they want without fear of governmental intervention."
So far in the brief search that I tried I couldn't find a real answer to it. Does anyone here know for sure if it's true or false?
Hadn't heard that but it wouldn't surprise me and the reason it wouldn't surprise me is that Congress screwed the pooch on prescription drugs when they decided they couldn't (or woudn't) negotiate the price of medications with the big pharma companies.
Yes, that has to be the stupidest and most inexplicable decision in recent memory. It throws away the entire bargaining might of these huge programs.
That one boggled my mind when I learned of it. Congress gave away something which would have been astronomically helpful to many Americans but yet punish those who go to across the border into Canada for prescription meds.
"And the 'horrible socialist' that was FDR brought this country out of an agrarian past into winning a world war and dominating the globe in finance, culture, and technology."
Good point. :mrgreen:
Ken, the singer that I've been working with recently is living proof that even Auto Tune cant make some things right. :-\
Let's please stay away from foreign policy. Thanks.
One thing I wonder about; U.S. based companies seem to develop a dis-proportionately large amount of helpful drugs and medical advances that are used worldwide (note: I didn't claim all). What happens when the profit incentive (which pays for those developments) is removed from the equation?
TheWWII GI Bill was a major factor in transforming this country. The returning GIs went to college or otherwise shifted their goals from the farm to the city. I'm not familiar with FDRs role in that particular legislation, but I doubt that he was solely responsible for it.
I was pleased to see educational benefits for our current soldiers - I teach some of them in my online course. My own opinion is that service to the country fully justifies support in gaining a better education.
If the government tries to control drug prices, new drug innovation will dwindle and nothing significant will be developed after awhile. It's just the way the world works. Ninety percent of all drug and technological advances in medicine ceom from researchers here in the US. Why? The development is driven by profit incentives. It's that simple, like the free market or not.
The pharma companies' lobbyists wrote large portions of the health care bill relating to pharma companies. They aren't losing any sleep over it. They own the congressmen who voted for it.
The layoffs in the industry aren't due to this bill. Period.
And don't expect that government will step in and develop new drugs. They can't even run the Post Office or Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac without billion dollar losses.